McKinsey · consulting-deck
UK Electricity Efficiency Potential
129 pages · 4 arc beats · 2 loops
UK Electricity Efficiency Potential
McKinsey arc beats above · slides in the middle · loops below · scroll → 2 LOOPS
1102030405060708090100110120129
Deck intelligence map
4 coverage by narrative range · generated from this deck JSON
Narrative range 164 total
Metadata
Components
Metrics
Tools
Frameworks
Beats
Loops
Situation & Context 5 slides 100% 5/5 slides 100% 5/5 slides · 23 hits 20% 1/5 slides 40% 2/5 slides · 3 hits 40% 2/5 slides 100% 5/5 slides · 8 hits — 0/5 slides
Problem & Complication 10 slides 100% 10/10 slides 100% 10/10 slides · 48 hits 60% 6/10 slides 40% 4/10 slides · 5 hits 30% 3/10 slides 100% 10/10 slides · 20 hits 10% 1/10 slides Evidence & Proof 72 slides 100% 72/72 slides 100% 72/72 slides · 401 hits 56.9% 41/72 slides 69.4% 50/72 slides · 54 hits 36.1% 26/72 slides 100% 72/72 slides · 104 hits 13.9% 10/72 slides Impact & Next Steps 77 slides 100% 77/77 slides 100% 77/77 slides · 369 hits 32.5% 25/77 slides 42.9% 33/77 slides · 35 hits 19.5% 15/77 slides 100% 77/77 slides · 102 hits 13% 10/77 slides Slide inventory
129 every slide · same image gating as the playbook
02
The slide uses a process-oriented layout with five distinct columns representing project phases.plan_implementation
Open slide detailBeat · Situation & Context
07
The chart uses a waterfall structure to isolate the impact of policy on electricity demand projections.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
08
The chart uses a 'Policy Off' scenario. CAGR values are provided for specific sectors.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
09
The slide uses a waterfall-like logic to sum the impacts of two sectors on total electricity demand.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
11
The slide outlines specific assumptions for societal vs private perspectives and defines inclusions/exclusions for abatement and cost calculations.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Problem & Complication
12
The chart uses a waterfall structure to show the cumulative impact of efficiency measures on the baseline demand.quantify_impact
13
This is a classic McKinsey-style abatement cost curve.quantify_impact
14
The chart is a classic McKinsey-style abatement cost curve.quantify_impact
15
Uses waterfall-style logic to show the decomposition of abatement potential.quantify_impact
16
The slide uses a waterfall-style layout for data presentation, categorizing measures into four segments: Buildings, Heating and air-conditioning, Appliances/elequantify_impact
17
The slide uses a table structure to compare different energy efficiency measures. It highlights the 'share of sector potential' for specific categories.quantify_impact
18
The slide uses a table format to compare various abatement measures across three key metrics.analyze_data
19
The slide uses a waterfall-style layout for the electricity savings column. The 'Share of sector potential' is highlighted for Motors (26%) and Pumps (40%).analyze_data
20
The table uses a mix of bar charts and numerical data to compare different industrial efficiency levers.analyze_data
21
The slide uses a matrix layout to visualize sensitivity analysis.analyze_data
22
The slide uses a 3x3 matrix to demonstrate sensitivity, highlighting that discount rate changes have a larger impact on abatement cost than CO2 price changes.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
24
The slide uses a Gantt-chart style visualization to map policy duration and status (active vs. in consultation) across three sectors.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
25
The table uses a hierarchical structure to group measures by sector and provides specific descriptions for each category.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
26
The slide uses a color-coded matrix to indicate the extent of policy coverage for specific energy efficiency measures.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
27
The slide uses a color-coded bubble system to indicate the percentage of potential captured.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
28
The slide uses a color-coded bubble system to indicate the percentage of potential captured.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
29
The table highlights that most measures have low capture rates (<25%) by current Building Regulations.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
30
The slide highlights that broad policies like EU ETS have limited incremental impact on electricity demand once overlaps are accounted for.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
32
The slide uses a numbered list with lettered sub-points to organize qualitative findings.diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
33
The slide uses a two-row structure to categorize insights into 'Policy gap' and 'Complex/changing landscape', supported by qualitative user quotes.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
34
The slide uses a 'C' label for the category and includes a footnote regarding CCAs.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
35
The slide uses a hierarchical table structure to map barriers to their descriptions and real-world examples.frame_problem
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
36
The slide uses a color-coded matrix to represent the severity of barriers (red = high, yellow = medium, grey = low/none).diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
37
The slide uses a color-coded matrix to visualize barrier mitigation. The '2030 impact' is represented by a stacked bar chart showing captured vs uncaptured potediagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
38
The slide uses a weighted scoring system to prioritize barriers based on their impact on uncaptured potential.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
39
The slide uses a binary heatmap (barrier vs. no barrier) to visualize qualitative data across segments.diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
40
The slide uses a color-coded matrix to map policy effectiveness against specific barrier types for various building sectors.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
41
The slide uses a two-row structure to contrast two distinct barriers, each supported by bullet points and direct quotes from industry stakeholders.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
42
The slide uses testimonials to reinforce the quantitative data point that transaction costs represent 30% of total project costs.frame_problem
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
44
The slide uses a comparative framework to show that in the UK, the average length of home ownership (11 years) significantly exceeds the average payback period diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
45
The slide uses a structured layout with two main points (A and B) supported by bulleted text and illustrative quotes from industry stakeholders.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
47
The slide highlights a misalignment between corporate investment hurdles (2 years) and actual project payback periods (up to 5 years).compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
48
The slide uses pie charts to show the high percentage of commercial space that is either leased or managed by third parties, creating a misalignment of incentivdiagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
49
The slide uses a bar chart to illustrate the mismatch between investment payback periods and shorter tenancy durations.diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
50
The chart illustrates the law of diminishing returns in energy efficiency improvements.illustrate_case
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
51
Includes two testimonials from electricity-intensive users.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
53
The slide uses a structured table to map policy interventions to market barriers.present_solution
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
54
The slide uses a color-coded legend where red text indicates U.K. examples.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
55
The slide uses a numbered list format (4-8) to categorize policy design options.compare_options
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
56
The slide uses a two-column layout to map specific case studies (A-D) to their strategic selection rationale.illustrate_case
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
61
The slide uses a structured table to link problem statements (barriers) to the necessary conditions (beliefs) for a proposed solution (incentives) to work.diagnose
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
64
The slide uses pie charts to visualize percentage distributions of electricity consumption.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
65
The chart uses a waterfall structure to show how individual sectors sum up to the total consumption.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
66
The slide uses a methodology box to cite data sources for residential and services sectors.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
68
The slide presents two line charts comparing different scenarios against a DECC 'policy off' baseline.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
69
The slide uses a stacked bar chart to compare DECC 2010 actuals with 2010 and 2030 projections, detailing the methodology and key drivers.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
70
The chart uses a stacked bar format to show sectoral breakdown of TWh consumption.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
71
Includes methodology notes and key drivers for the projected increase in electricity demand.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
72
The chart compares a baseline 'DECC central policy off' scenario against incremental and combined impacts of EV and heating electrification.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
73
The slide uses a scenario-based approach to forecast electricity demand (TWh) and percentage of total demand across three carbon-intensity cases.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
74
The slide uses a combination of bar charts and callout metrics to show the growth in TWh and percentage of total demand.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
76
This is a classic McKinsey-style Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC).quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
77
This is a classic McKinsey-style abatement cost curve.quantify_impact
Open slide detailBeat · Evidence & Proof
78
The slide provides context for sensitivity analysis performed in later slides.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
79
The chart illustrates the convergence of traded and non-traded carbon costs by 2030.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
80
The slide contrasts production costs (societal) with retail prices (private sector) and highlights the impact of cogeneration in industrial settings.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
82
The slide provides technical assumptions for energy efficiency modeling in residential buildings.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
83
This is a technical appendix slide providing the underlying assumptions for a model.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
85
The slide uses a structured table format to present technical assumptions for building efficiency measures.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
86
The slide provides specific quantitative assumptions for energy efficiency modeling.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
92
The slide uses a structured table format to compare volume (savings potential) and cost (capex/retrofit) assumptions across four industrial categories.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
93
The table is structured by process type (Low vs High temperature) and industry, mapping specific efficiency measures to their respective volume potential and coanalyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
96
Includes footnotes regarding motor system optimization and EU ETS impact.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
99
The chart uses a point-allocation methodology where interviewees distributed 100 points across barriers.diagnose
100
The slide acts as a research instrument or questionnaire guide.other
101
This slide serves as a research instrument or interview protocol.other
104
The slide uses a comparative structure to evaluate the transferability of a specific energy market mechanism.illustrate_case
105
The slide tracks both absolute MW capacity and relative percentage share of energy efficiency resources in the ISO-NE market.analyze_data
106
The slide provides a detailed textual explanation of market rules, including a specific revenue calculation example.establish_context
107
C&I = Commercial and Industrial. FCM = Forward Capacity Market.analyze_data
109
The slide uses a simple hierarchical list structure to explain regulatory documentation levels.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
110
The slide uses a structured table to define regulatory compliance requirements for demand reduction suppliers.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
111
The slide uses a horizontal process flow to break down the FCM mechanism into four distinct phases.present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
112
This is the second part of a process flow, focusing on the operational and regulatory mechanics of the Forward Capacity Market (FCM).present_framework
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
113
The slide uses a combination of a timeline area chart and a line chart to explain market mechanics.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
114
The slide uses a structured layout with a context header, a left column for mechanism description, and a right column for key facts categorized by impact, cost,illustrate_case
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
115
Part 2 of 2. Uses a comparative layout to contrast benefits/challenges against implications.illustrate_case
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
116
The slide outlines the legislative mandate and the subsequent market-based implementation process for energy efficiency in Texas.establish_context
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
117
The chart compares annual MW goals against actual MW achieved by IOUs.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
118
The table uses dot markers to indicate the presence of a program for a specific utility.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
120
The slide uses a two-part structure to define and list sub-types for two distinct energy efficiency program categories.establish_context
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
121
The slide uses pie charts to visualize the distribution of savings across different customer segments.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
122
The slide uses a table structure to map sectors to program descriptions.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
123
The slide uses two pie charts to visualize the distribution of savings across different program categories.analyze_data
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
124
The slide uses a table structure to categorize programs by sector and describe their operational details.summarize
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
125
The slide uses a two-column layout to contrast the mechanism description with specific market facts.illustrate_case
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
126
The slide uses a two-column layout to contrast benefits/challenges against market implications.illustrate_case
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
127
The slide uses a simple equation visual to explain the creation of an ESC (removal of inefficient tech + installation of efficient tech = certificate).illustrate_case
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps
128
The slide uses a two-column layout to contrast the mechanism description with key facts about M&V/additionality.illustrate_case
Open slide detailBeat · Impact & Next Steps